Chapter 3. Restoring Utility to Armed Force in the 21st Century

During the past decade or so a new type of enemy has challenged Western values and influence. Unsurprisingly, the United States has chosen to confront these enemies vigorously and there is general agreement that the West is now in a global war with challengers known as ‘terrorists’—although that term relates to only a small part of their agenda.

One of the most startling features of the Bush Administration’s use of armed force over the past five years has been the stark contrast between cost and effectiveness. Colossal amounts of money are being spent—up to US$10 billion per month (including US8.6 billion for Iraq and US$1.4 billion for Operation Enduring Freedom)^[1] —and huge volumes of rubble and ruins have been generated in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. Much more importantly, the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been lost and those of hundreds of thousands of others severely blighted. A number of improvements have been made to civil infrastructure in Iraq, but these are outweighed by the damage and insecurity which have resulted from Coalition operations and the subsequent insurgency. Afghanistan remains insecure and its infrastructure badly damaged, while Lebanon took such a pounding in July and August 2006 that it will take some time to be rehabilitated economically, socially and politically. Many more people in the Middle East, running into the tens of millions, have had their fears and prejudices about Western discriminatory attitudes towards Muslims and Arabs, their religion, culture, institutions and societies, reinforced by these events. They are not all going to bear their pain stoically and seek reconciliation. Some are already striking back and we can expect more to store their grievances, their feelings of having suffered injustice and of having been treated like bit-characters in computer war games. They will support those they view as their oppressed fellows. Some will join those who propose exacting vengeance on the authors of their sufferings and those of their friends.

The West has some interesting tests coming up in the next decade or two. We had better get our armed forces and the policies which govern their development, equipment, training and use into better shape. We need to establish control over a situation which looks to be growing steadily worse. If we fail to do so soon, we may slide into a slowly deteriorating security situation with the most serious consequences. Politically, the trends are already quite worrying. One has only to look occasionally at international polls of public opinion and the way in which the trends have been moving over the past few years to comprehend how much worse the situation can become from the perspective of those who are most heavily involved in the application of armed force today. The United States has few allies in Iraq of any real military utility. It has a real problem in ensuring that this number does not decline further and that public opinion in other democracies does become more critical of US policies, especially in supporting intervention in those parts of the world where severe threats might arise. We require a political and military reversal. Moreover, as far as the use of military force is concerned, in future we need to be much cleverer and more successful in its application than we have been for the past several years.

I believe that the most severe threat confronting the United States and its allies today is nuclear terrorism. We must be alert to the dangers of nuclear weapons proliferating into the hands of those who abhor the West. Two leading anti-Western states—Iran and North Korea—already have flourishing nuclear weapons programs. Soon they may both be able to pass nuclear warheads into the hands of terrorist agents for delivery against sensitive Western targets. Iran and North Korea will seek to increase their indirect influence among their neighbours and on the global scene simply by their ownership of nuclear weapons. They might even accept the risks involved with blackmailing other governments which are not in a position to retaliate directly. In the worst case, they can make direct use of nuclear weapons in their own names against people that they despise, irrespective of the consequences. There also remains a proliferation risk from other nuclear powers and, indeed, even from other friendly states that happen to have nuclear weapons. They do not all have perfectly inviolable security systems to protect their warheads or fissile material from corrupt sale or outright theft. Nor may all such states be perfectly stable politically or always inclined to avoid confrontation with the West.

Clearly, we have to think seriously about meeting the prospective challenges arising from these kinds of nuclear threats. Our experience during the Cold War taught us that it is best to deal with them by a combination of deterrence and arms control. Yet not all the actors in this expanded cast of characters may prove deterrable, nor may they be amenable to restraint by arms control—particularly should the West appear to be cavalier in its own attitudes towards arms control and its obligations. Nuclear weapons may have had a positive utility in restraining the use of force during the Cold War, but they are now much more of a threat to the leading Western states, particularly the United States of America, than to any one else, especially the people most likely to use them. We should do all we can to avoid further proliferation, and to put into effect a stronger international anti-proliferation regime.

The initiative taken in July 2006 by US President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin to establish the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism was very appropriate and timely.^[2] It is sad perhaps that more could not have been done earlier because the proliferation problem has worsened markedly since the end of the Cold War, but at least the dangers are being recognised and addressed at the highest levels. I wonder if both leaders really understand that their own national policies will need to be re-shaped and restrained if this Initiative is to prove worth the paper that it is written on.

By way of defences, we particularly need the types of improved security systems that are currently in place at major Western sea and airports, but we require them in greater depth. The model provided by the shipping container inspection arrangements that came into force in hub ports around the world following the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States is a good starting point, but there are many gaps in the system which must be filled.^[3] While anti-missile defences will be important if they can be made cost effective, the likeliest delivery vehicle for a nuclear warhead will be the shipping container or the truck rather than the intercontinental missile. That danger still demands attention. Moreover, we must not forget that Iran and North Korea may still have to be addressed by force if either allows their nuclear weapons to become a direct danger to the United States, its allies and friends.

The second major threat to the United States and its allies and partners is exemplified by the conflicts now taking place in the Middle East. As the nature of international order has changed, so, unsurprisingly, has the nature of war. Regrettably, war in general did not disappear with the Cold War: it simply became more complex and very different in form to what the major powers had been preparing for over the past several decades. The conduct of hostilities has become more complex and more a matter of the intellect, and the means of warfare increasingly technological. These developments offer opportunities to small numbers of determined people, especially if they are prepared to give their lives in order to damage Western interests. They also play to a number of Western strengths, especially in the field of technology (although we should be careful not to get trapped into following too technological an approach).

It seems increasingly unlikely that this century will see the forces of major powers being used directly against each other in a manner similar to the two world wars of the twentieth century. The painful lessons of experience from those wars still seem clearly in the minds of current national leaders. What is abundantly clear from recent experience is that hostilities will occur mainly between the West (led by the United States) and dissident forces (sometimes in the form of a state such as North Korea and Iran, and sometimes in the shape of sub-state elements such as al Qaeda and other shadowy groups of irregular fighters).

The two key issues are how long these confrontations will continue; and the best means by which the West can emerge as the arbiter of a new, more peaceful era?

On the first of these, there is a wide consensus that these conflicts will not be settled in a brief period. We are probably in for a generation of hostilities of varying intensity, assuming that our methods are effective. The formula advocated by the Bush Administration for achieving a cheap, rapid and stable peace (namely political transformation into a democracy) is very hard to apply. Democracy requires deep and solid foundations. Giving it a stable structure in Iraq and Afghanistan is proving formidably difficult. Clearly we need to better understand the process of conversion of dissident states and groups into ones with whom we can coexist peacefully. This process will prove slow and, in some cases, even unfeasible.

Even if it is possible, is it reasonable to assume that the resulting democracies will always see eye to eye sufficiently to avoid war? The Palestinians may continue to elect Hamas or governments like it, particularly if Israeli pressures remain strong. The Lebanese may continue to elect Hezbollah candidates to their parliament who will stake a claim to participation in their government. In August 2005 the Iranians elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as their President partly on the basis of his defiance of Western policies in general, including Western demands for Iran to cease its advance towards the development of nuclear weapons. Our troubles with all of these peoples and their leaders may persist even if their political systems evolve into a form of democracy.

We therefore need to approach the questions of reform of our military forces very seriously and on a long-term basis given that we are dealing with major, long-term dangers. The efforts we make to meet them should correspond to the natures of these dangers.